Ch7

Chapter 7 Responses

Ethical absolutism claims that there is only one single moral standard that applies to everyone in the world.

I disagree with ethical absolutism because I believe that morality is relative to each individual culture. For example, abortion is considered to be morally wrong in Ireland, where there is no population explosion. In China however, abortion is not thought of as morally wrong since China is so incredibly overpopulated. It would seem wrong to have an unneeded baby in China, as it would only add to the starvation and population surge that is ravaging the country. Therefore, if it is right to do something in one culture and wrong to do the same thing in another culture, then morality is relative and ethical absolutism is false.

Ethical relativism is the view that there is not one single set of moral codes, instead claiming that morality is relative.

I can't say that I completely agree with ethical relativism either because it seems to contradict itself. It says that morality is relative according to each individual society, but it says nothing about each person in a society. Therefore, if my society believes that abortion is morally wrong and I believe it to be right, my beliefs are morally wrong because they don't comply with those of my society.

The view of the consequentialist theory is that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences.

I think that this theory applies sometimes, but not always, to determine the morality of an action. There are many times when the consequences of an action can be used to decide whether or not the action is moral, but there are also many times when they cannot. For example: A pregnant woman could go into labor, and her husband could decide to rush her to the hospital. On the trip there, however, the husband crashes the car, killing his wife and child. Now, the accident was caused because the husband decided to rush her to the hospital. This was done out of the best intentions, and yet still had negative consequences. Therefore, I think consequences and intention both play a part in determining what actions are right and what actions are wrong.

Egoism is the claim that moral actions are actions that work out best for the person performing them.

I agree somewhat with this statement. I think that most (if not all) actions performed by people can be found to have been done for the best intentions of the person performing them. Humans are merely animals, no different or better than any other animal on this planet, and all animals act in an egoist way, always putting their own best interest ahead of others. This decision is not always made consciously by people, but I believe it to be true. But, if this is the case, are there such things as morals and ethics? Morality cannot apply to actions governed by nature, and this is how I see all actions, from blinking an eye to buying a cake, every human action is governed by nature. Such natural actions cannot have moral values assigned to them.

Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the human's utimate good.

I disagree with this belief. I think that the human's ultimate good is survival. Survival is the main thing that humans perform any actions towards. Once survival is established (which it is for most humans) things such as comfort, pleasure, and happiness come into consideration, but the chief factor, the chief "good" according to humans is survival.

Utilitarianism is the view that humans should act in a way that produces the greatest happiness or pleasure.

It is very difficult to disagree with this statement, but I feel as though I must since, after agreeing with egoism, it would be a contradiction to agree with this as well. I think that, if such a thing as morals exist (which they very well might) then people should act in a way that produces the greatest amount of happiness. Unfortunately, they don't; instead they act in a way which best suits them individually, leading me to believe that morality does not exist.

Rule utilitarianism is the view that the factor that makes an action morally right is the rule governing the action.

I believe that this view basically says that it is the thought that counts, not the action. As I already said in my response to the consequentialist theory, this applies to morality (if such a thing exists) some of the time. Sometimes it is the thought that counts, while other times it is the results that matter. Rule utilitarianism and the consequentialist theory walk hand in hand and both play a part in morality. I suppose that this is a nonconsequentialist view in that I do think an action is determined by more than just its consequences.

The divine command theory says that we should always do the will of God.

I strongly disagree with this theory under the grounds of ignorance. How do we know what the will of God is? I've already established that I think the Bible is a work of fiction that should not be interpreted as anything otherwise, so what else is there? There is the actual word of God, but many people who claim that God has spoken to them are locked up in asylums (I'm not saying that they are necessarily insane, but I'm sure that some are). Besides, God (if He exists) does not speak to everybody. At least, not in terms that everybody can understand. Therefore, how are we to know what the will of God is? I think that there must be more to life than just being the puppet of a higher being. (Of course, this ties into my clarification of chapter 5, am I just a puppet? A figment of a higher being's imagination?) If nobody (or almost nobody) really knows what God's will is, then everybody must be running around guessing as to what is morally correct to do. If God existed and if we were to act upon his will (which none of us know) then God would not allow such moral corruption among his children, and would appear to us, telling us his will. This hasn't happened, so we are left with two explanations. Either A. God does not exist, or B. We are not meant to live by God's rule. I have already claimed that there can be no way to know of the nonexistence of God, so that leaves choice B, we are not meant to live by God's will.

Kant's categorical imperative claims that, for an action to be considered ethical, think of the action as a universal law that applies to everyone. If it still seems ethical, then it is.

Though I can't think of any action that would not work in Kant's formula, I still am not convinced of its truthfulness. The absence of proof otherwise does not confirm something. It seems to work for everything that I could try, and I know as a pragmatist I am supposed to believe in anything that works, but there could always be that one thing which the categorical imperative cannot handle. I suppose I am just hesitant to believe that anything always works, so I remain skeptical about this.

Buddhism believes that purity of mind is the most important thing to humans.

I know that I just implied that survival is the most important thing to humans, but I didn't mean it in that sense. Survival governs all our actions, but I agree with Buddhism in that I think purity of mind is the most important thing to people. Without a clean, clear and pure mind, people have no value. Buddhism also stresses, "right thought", which ties into having a pure mind. Right thought determines actions and builds morality. The mind is the most important thing a human has because it is what sets us apart from the other animals (it doesn't make us any more important than them, it just sets us apart) and allows us to make decisions.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws